I've been trying to represent Stacks as a template, I used a struct and every thing is good, but every time I wanted to write a template function, I had to write the same template statement, which didn't seem correct -although working-
So how can I write one template statement for all the functions?, here is my code :
template
struct Stack
{
T Value;
Stack* next;
};
template
void Push(T Value,Stack* &Top)
{
Stack * Cell = new Stack();
Cell->Value = Value;
Cell->next = Top;
Top = Cell;
};
template
bool IsEmpty(Stack * Top)
{
return (Top==0);
}
template
void Pop(T &Value,Stack* &Top)
{
if (IsEmpty(Top))
cout * Temp = Top;
Value = Top->Value;
Top = Top->next;
delete Temp;
}
}
template
void GetTop(T &Value, Stack* &Top)
{
if (IsEmpty(Top))
cout Value;
}
template
void EmptyStack(Stack * &Top)
{
Stack * Temp;
while (!(IsEmpty(Top)))
{
Temp = Top;
Top = Top->next;
delete Temp;
}
}
Hope what I mean is clear now, sorry for the slight question :(
thanks in advance.
Answer
If (as appears to be the case based on your comment) you want them as free functions, you can't. You'll also have to change the Stack
parameter, something like this:
template
void Push(T Value, Stack* &Top)
{
Stack * Cell = new Stack();
Cell->Value = Value;
Cell->next = Top;
Top = Cell;
};
As it stands, I'm not too excited about your design though. You try to use the Stack
type as both an actual stack, and as a single node (Cell) in the stack. This is unnecessarily confusing at best.
Edit: As far as stack vs. node goes, what I'm talking about is (as in the code immediately above): Stack *Cell = new Stack();
-- you're allocating a single Cell that goes in the stack, but the type you're using for it is Stack
.
I'd do something like this instead:
template
struct Stack {
struct node {
T data;
node *next;
};
node *head;
};
template
void push(T item, Stack *&s) {
Stack::node *n = new Stack:node();
n->data = item;
n->next = s->head;
s->head = n;
}
It doesn't make a lot of difference in what you're really doing, but when you're putting something onto a stack, allocating a Stack
seems (at least to me) to make a lot more sense than allocating a Stack
. A stack containing multiple nodes makes sense -- a Stack containing multiple stacks really doesn't.
No comments:
Post a Comment